Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Religio


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nova Religio
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced, no reliable independent primary or secondary sources, original research, non-notability, WP:NOPAGE : current article does not meet requirements for dedicated standalone page. There are two links in the indexing section, one is a link to the publisher and the other seems to be a database of journals, and both links could not be accessed. Indexing databases like Worldcat contains indexing of many non-notable books, therefore indexing databases for books or journals are not indicator of notability. Riley0O0O0O (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Total failure of WP:BEFORE. Journal is not only in ATLA, but also in the highly selective AHCI and Scopus. Very clear meet of WP:NJournals. Nom should familiarize themselves with acceptable content for journal articles (see WP:JWG before going on another spree of deleting content and nominating articles for AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for fixing this Page. Please no personal attack. This is my first AfD. I am still skeptical about indexing databases. Indexing databases like worldcat don't prove notability for books I have learned. The Scopus database you mention covers nearly 36,377 titles [...] of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals" This is a very large number.  Are you saying that there are at least 34,346 journals that should have wikipedia articles? You said in another discussion: "Scopus is a bit less restricitve" but here you changed your mind and call it "highly" selective. You also said, "Given the latter's relatively lax criteria (and coverage of absolutely every academic field, be it science or humanities), it never has been easier for a journal to meet our inclusion criteria." You also said that one option is to "Apply GNG rigorously and only include articles on journals that are covered in depth by multiple independent reliable sources."  In the current article, there are no reliable sources showing it is covered in depth by multiple independent reliable sources, and no indicator of high impact factor. --Riley0O0O0O (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because Worldcat is not selective. Scopus is, and it indexes about 22,000 journals not 35,000. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Riley0O0O0O@undefinedWhat personal attack? pointing out that someone made a mistake or apparently is not familiar with some of our guidelines or procedures is not a personal attack. As fo Scopus, yes, I am from time to time a bit sceptical about it, but consensus up till now is that inclusion in it indicates notability. And even if you completely ignore Scopus, this journal is in the highly selective Arts and Humanities Citation Index. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly notable and fully inline with the expectations of our journal writing guide (i.e. clearly not a case of WP:NOPAGE), the journal indexed in Scopus and ranks in the first quartile (60th out of 465) in terms of impact. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The current article has no in-depth coverage. If the information on terms of impact is correct, please put it into the article. Whether being indexed in SCOPUS and other indices proves notability is controversial, see the debates in the talkpage archives of WP:NJOURNALS. --Riley0O0O0O (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why did I know you were going to make those exact comments. I had my suspicions, but now I am all but certain. SPI investigation requested. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, being indexed in selective indices is a pretty uncontroversial pass, where academic journal AfD's are concerned; see the archives of the deletion-sorting page to gauge how the community has settled on this. WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:NOTDIRECTORY is irrelevant to the present matter, since this page is not merely a product listing or an indiscriminate list of a publisher's offerings. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Indexed in selective indices, which count as secondary sources. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WIkipedia defines seondardy sources as: WP:SECONDARY It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. A simple catalogue or indexing database offers no in-depth analysis or evaluation. The current article has no in-depth coverage, and apart from the links to indexing databases, no independent references. --Riley0O0O0O (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And that's where you are wrong. Scopus and JCR offers plenty of analysis and evalution. That's what the  SCImago Journal Rank and impact factor are (although it's certainly not the only analysis they offer). As for the 'in depth' coverage, the article currently contains the basic information about the journal (peer review journal of religious studies), the current EIC, who publishes it, when it was established, and a history of its frequency of publication. As well as its ISO abbreviation, ISSN and other identifiers, as well as indexing information. That forms an informative, if basic, article about the subject. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.